Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czarnorzeczka

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Despite a lengthy discussion, nobody actually opposes deletion. Whether to create a redirect to an approtiate article is up to users. Sandstein 09:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czarnorzeczka

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Briefly mentioned historically, but just a sub-unit of Zwierzyniec Mały. Appears separate in OSM though. Probably does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with so many Kotbot articles, the location data in the article is wrong - it points to an empty field near a non-descript farm in Prohalino (though the location of Prohalino on GMaps is probably also wrong since it is in the middle of a dense forest - but GMaps likely got that data from a Kotbot article so...). The location-type is also wrong: this is not a village but a sub-division of a village. OSM is a wiki-like source and thus not a reliable one.

Contrary to what some think, WP:GEOLAND does not give automatic notability to populated places. Firstly, the place must be a "legally recognised" "populated place" (i.e., have received some form of actual legal recognition as a populated place, meaning a status such as being incorporated). Simply being listed in government documents as a locality does not do this. Secondly, GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, one that can be rebutted by showing, e.g., that nothing can be found giving any details about the locality. In this case, it is not even clear where the location is from the data cited in the article, there is no population data on the Polish census, simply mentions of the location.

Even if you think GEOLAND is passed and that that is sufficient to give this place notability, WP:NOPAGE is very clear that we don't have to have a separate article about such a location - but in this case there is no actual accurate information in the article to merge either since it appears to be entirely incorrect. This is not surprising when you consider that these articles were created by a bot at a speed of 1000's of articles per day without any human checking at all. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pl wiki article exists and states this is a village. @Stok, @Malarz pl... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus While TERYT and the other document listed on the Polish Wikipedia have it as an independent village, Geoportal and GUS suggest otherwise (the former clearly showing Czarnorzeczka as part of Zwierzyniec Mały). Because the two from Polish Wikipedia are directories and the two I named more descriptive, I figured this was a case for WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE (if Czarnorzeczka is removed, I will mention it on Zwierzyniec Mały). However, this is why I AfD-ed this page, rather than PROD-ing it. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GUS BDL cointains census areas (gminas and above) and census places (these are not all legally recognized places). Map on https://e-mapa.net/polska/zwierzyniec-maly-0026956/ looks like "obszary ewidencyjne" (in Polish villages havn't borders). Czarnorzeczka is listed in SIMC (part of TERYT) as a standalone village. And has the same status in PRNG. Malarz pl (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without census data showing that this is an actual populated place, where is the evidence this is actually populated? PL Wiki has a much more lax standard for notability than EN Wiki (which is why importing PL Wiki articles in to EN Wiki as Kotbot did was a massive mistake) so the existence of a PL wiki article is not sufficient to sustain this one. Also WP:NOPAGE which is very clear about what to do with an article that essentially has no real content other than a directory listing - redirect it to a higher-level article and mention the place there, and it is already mentioned in the article Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. A place that is sourced only to TERYT merits a redirect and nothing else. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gazetteer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish national census counts people by "miejscowości statystyczne" (census places). Sometimes it covers one place, in most cases in covers few places (discused in pl bot request). Maybe @Msz2001: could write something more about cesus data. Anyway redirect to Zwierzyniec Mały will be wrong. Czarnorzeczka is not a part of it. Maybe is a part of "sołectwo Zwierzyniec Mały", but not village "Zwierzyniec Mały". "Sołęctwo" isn't notable on pl.wiki (so I think on en.wiki too). It's a part of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. Malarz pl (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The methodology used by GUS when clustering actual municipalities into census places is unknown to me but it does not reflect administrative relations. In this particular case, Czarnorzeczka is one of two actual villages in Zwierzyniec Mały census place (the other one is village Zwierzyniec Mały) [1]. I'm aware of cases where two sołectwos were merged into one census place: one village having 2500 residents and other with under 100 inhabitants.

However, according to SIMC registry (the actual administrative registry of villages and towns in Poland), Czarnorzeczka is a base village and not an integral part of other one [2] (SIMC code: 0026962).

And regarding the ability to tell whether it's an actually populated place: There are ca. 55k base municipalities in Poland (ie. administrative entities that are not part of other village nor town). Out of those, only 26.5k (25.5k villages and 1k towns) has a population count given officially by GUS. The other half is clustered into census places so that it's impossible to tell precisely how many inhabitants live in these villages. Msz2001 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50k+ "village" articles for a country of fewer than 40 million people is actually pretty excessive. Particularly if the actual proposal is for half of those to not even include data of how many people live there, meaning most will literally just be "XXXX is a village in YYYY, Poland". ~25k would be closer to what you would expect proportionate to population. The USA has a population of more than 300 million but only has 73,057 census tracts. Iran has a population of nearly 90 million and has 46,000 official villages.

GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to populated places that are legally recognised as such. It is based on the assumption that, for example, an incorporated city or chartered town, will likely have covergae in secondary sources sufficient for an article to be written about the,. Simply being included on a register does not confer any status or power on the populated place, of the kind that would make coverage in secondary sources sufficiently likely for the presumption to apply. Further, any presumption can be rebutted - it is not simply automatic regardless of any other facts. In this case, it has been rebutted by showing a lack of coverage anywhere else. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Openstreetmap shows that it has its own local boundary, but I'm not sure if it uses census boundaries or not. If a redirect to Zwierzyniec Mały is wrong, it's likely a standalone place and I'd err on the side of keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not listed as a Sołęctwo in the Gmina [3]. Leaning delete for this one, if there's no appropriate redirect, although Zwierzyniec Mały may be OK. The OSM shows Czarnorzeczka to have a separate boundary but also within Zwierzyniec Mały. Rupples (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.